Hacker Charlie
New member
EDIT:
Nevermind, JB answered my question as I was asking it! lol
Nevermind, JB answered my question as I was asking it! lol
Driving quality, or lack of...
JPsuff
Banned
Can you honestly say that today's game, with its 300-plus yard drives and 190 yard 9-irons is really better than the game that was played decades ago? Can you really say that today's game has the shotmaking that existed back then?
I can't - I honestly can't.
That doesn't mean that today's game doesn't have its appeal, but as I've said, today I have to wonder how much technology plays a part in what pro's can do while back then, the idea that someone was playing some kind of jacked-up equipment wasn't even something to consider. Sure, Jack and many, if not most or all, of those guys had custom clubs made for them and they were weighted for them and sculpted to their specs. But the basic design of those clubs was still the same across the board: a lump of forged steel attached to a stick. No "spring effect". composite materials, titanium, perimeter weighting, U-grooves or any of the myriad technologies available today. In fact, in many ways, the only thing that separated the games of Hogan, Palmer and Nicklaus from the games of Jones, Vardon or Hagen was the advent of the steel shaft, which is why I can connect the former to the latter. But today, I don't really feel a connection between today's game and golf of the past. Today I see golf as something that has parted company with "golf as I knew it" and begun an era completely unto itself.
Is that a bad thing? Maybe not from an entertainment point of veiw because every generation is its own audience. But when I look at the evolution of golf, the advancements in technology were generally small and long in coming compared to the exponential explosion of technology today and I think that the game has become more about science than skill and I think that's a shame.
-JP
Tmex
Paul Casey, WINNER!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2009
- Messages
- 21,982
- Reaction score
- 100
- Location
- Paul Casey's Twitter Page
- Handicap
- RCGA 14.2
- Admin
- #29
Where in the world did I say one was better or worse. You call todays game bomb and gouge and have on many occasions. Talking about the big drives and take your lumps. Yet you always fail to mention that Jack, was the exact same thing. He was the longest hitter and was #1. You may want to do a little research on the irons used in the 70s and 80s. They were not all created equally. You say all the guys had the same equipment technology wise and it was about talent. Yet as I pointed out, Jack played handmade everything that was nothing like what others were playing because most on tour were playing a draw and he plays a fade. He had totally different weighting.
But to me it is an absolute slap in teh face to the athletes out there right now to say that what separates them is technology. Have you ever thought that maybe the advent of the video camera made it more accessible to hone the right technique. Jack was a bomber. Arnie was a bomber and they were the best in their sport. Now look at the top 10 and compare it to driving distance. How about that, its not the longest guys on tour.
Your opinion on modern technology is the same in every single debate about technology.
In fact in every single thread that involves technology, we have heard the same thing. We get it, you do not like technology in many elements. But you cannot say that bomb and gouge now is different than it was back then, because the STATS DONT LIE. Here is some research you can do to prove my point even further. Nicklaus and Palmer both had less yardage into the green on average than Tiger or Phil. I was told that yesterday by Clay Long the maker of Jack's putters.
The courses are longer, the greens are harder and faster, and the fairways are tighter. The players have just gotten that much better than they were 3 decades ago.
Last edited:
AHacker'sHacker
Who is John Galt?
Thainer, my take on this is a little different. To me your proposal isn’t really a fair test of skills. The clubs and ball selected would most likely be the best combination for certain players while not for others.
A better approach, in my opinion, would be to tell all the players to ignore their sponsorships, go out and find the optimal equipment and ball for their game and then go play some rounds of golf. This would take equipment out of the equation and would leave players with decisions about which clubs to put in their bags for particular courses (i.e. more wedges, two drivers, etc) and their playing skills. To me this would be the best way to judge a player’s ability.
- Moderator
- #31
All professional athletes have the option of which gear they want to use. Hockey players select from excellent equipment makers to find the perfect fit or feel, just as baseball players select their gloves, bat, sunglasses, and shoes..
I think golf goes a step further, but in a very good way. While there are different curves used in hockey, there are different lies and lengths used in golf. I don't think it is ever a matter of being able to take advantage of the game just because golfers find a ball with the ideal compression for their swing style, but really, a matter of finding equipment that properly compliments their game.
If someone were to argue that golf equipment nowadays more accurately highlights the specifics of a golfers swing by matching them with a specific style of club, I would have a hard time arguing that, but it's not to say that this gives them any significant advantage over their competition, who do the exact same thing. I think the PGA Tour has done a tremendous job keeping the pros in check with how difficult some of the courses have become. Rarely do I find myself not wow'ed by some of the feats accomplished each Sunday.
I think golf goes a step further, but in a very good way. While there are different curves used in hockey, there are different lies and lengths used in golf. I don't think it is ever a matter of being able to take advantage of the game just because golfers find a ball with the ideal compression for their swing style, but really, a matter of finding equipment that properly compliments their game.
If someone were to argue that golf equipment nowadays more accurately highlights the specifics of a golfers swing by matching them with a specific style of club, I would have a hard time arguing that, but it's not to say that this gives them any significant advantage over their competition, who do the exact same thing. I think the PGA Tour has done a tremendous job keeping the pros in check with how difficult some of the courses have become. Rarely do I find myself not wow'ed by some of the feats accomplished each Sunday.
JPsuff
Banned
Perhaps I'm not making myself understood or I'm not expressing myself as clearly as I think I am.
I didn't say that technology is ALL that separates today's players from yesterday's players. What I'm saying is that I wonder how much of the talent seen today exists because of technology as opposed to raw talent and ability. Or put another way, how would today's talent fare using "yesterday's" equipment?
Every generation has its longest, fastest, strongest something and there's no question that Jack represents his era's example of that. But he managed to do that despite what by today's standards could only be described as a dearth of innovation and technology. Yes, if you took every club made in the 60's and 70's and compared them, I'm sure that minor differences could be revealed, but the overall technology, the overall "state of the art" in equipment was largely the same. There were no perimeter-weighted cavity backed clubs back then; there were no composites or any of the other things we take for granted today, so in effect the equipment was - for all intents and purposes - the same.
To say that yesterday's game was a "Bomb and Gouge" game is simply not true. If it was, then why did the expression "Bomb and Gouge" only appear recently and doesn't exist in any lexicon from years ago? In Jack's era, clubs such as 2-irons and 1-irons were often used to hit approach shots to long par 4's, not just to try to reach par 5's in two shots. The absence of U-grooves back then meant that a player had to understand what a "flyer" was and how to play the shot to allow for the extra distance and run. There were no "ball-fittings", no "optimization" as we know it today, there was no biometric feedback or launch monitors and shafts were all steel and were not manufactured with customized flex points throughout their entire length.
So bearing all of that in mind, I have to wonder how much of what I see today is the result of technology as opposed to skill and talent?
There's nothing wrong with technology and every generation has its innovations and improvements (for better or worse) and that's to be expected. But when technology becomes the focal point and either by design or by default supplants the tried and true methods of honing one's skills, I have to take a step back and wonder if that's good or bad. So from my "purist's" point of view, I simply want to know that whomever I see as a chamion in any discipline is so because of talent and skill and that they are not simply the product of technology.
To me, technology is like asking for rain for a newly seeded lawn. A little rain is great, but too much rain just washes the seed away.
-JP
- Admin
- #33
And again I will say that in Jack's era the longest hitter on the tour was #1. In todays era, that is not even close to the case. So the argument has no basis. But as i said before, some people will always say "back in my day, it was pure and about this and that". The fact is Jack played equipment different than just about anybody on tour. The difference was the media was not there to cover the equipment like they are today. NOBODY had clubs like Jack because his were all handmade by a legendary man named Don White and Jack was one of the few guys on tour that played a fade. His clubs were different because he played the game different. He is the one that started the multi wedge carrying, so perhaps he is to blame.
When Jack was playing, they said the same thing about Arnie. That Jack had all this technology behind him and hand made clubs that fit his specs because fitting was not around when Arnie played but was for Jack.
But the statistics dont lie. The longest hitters on tour were the top players on tour during his era. Now that is not the case, so perhaps the opposite happened and its just fond memories that make people think like they do.
CharlieMoy
Well-known member
Even up until the late 90s, wasnt Tiger the longest out there? Maybe not rated number one, but you could tell he was well on his way.
Excuse me for chiming in late, but I think thats its awesome that the worlds number one isnt the biggest hitter. It shows how well rounded your skills must be, I know course have been lengthened, but todays golf encompasses much more than just distance. Greens are firmer and faster[i think], which makes a better short, and mid game needed, aswell as putting.
EDIT: Sorry JB, just read back up the second page, and you said something extremely similar
Excuse me for chiming in late, but I think thats its awesome that the worlds number one isnt the biggest hitter. It shows how well rounded your skills must be, I know course have been lengthened, but todays golf encompasses much more than just distance. Greens are firmer and faster[i think], which makes a better short, and mid game needed, aswell as putting.
EDIT: Sorry JB, just read back up the second page, and you said something extremely similar
Just looked it up.
First, Second, etc.
1997 John Daly, Tiger Woods
1998: John Daly, Tiger Woods
1999: John Daly, Chris Couch, Tiger Woods
2000: John Daly, Tiger Woods
2001: John Daly, Bret Quigley, Davis Love III, Tiger Woods
2002: John Daly, Book Weekley, Matthew Goggin, Charles Howell III, Dennis Paulson, Tiger Woods
Most of those years Daly was ahead by 10 yards on second place except for 2001 when it was 3.4 yards
CharlieMoy
Well-known member
Yeah, so Tiger was pretty close to being the longest out there, in ranking, not by yardage. I really cant say this for sure, but I think todays game is more exciting than the 70s/80s wouldve been to see.
bogey_russ
outside operations
to me yesterdays game and todays game are the same... only the styles have changed...
tiger jack arnie you can lump them into one catagory... freaks of their era
phil and seve... magicians
throw diff clothes... diff equipment... diff venues... not too much diff
tiger jack arnie you can lump them into one catagory... freaks of their era
phil and seve... magicians
throw diff clothes... diff equipment... diff venues... not too much diff
- Admin
- #38
That is exactly right.
KickaPoo
It's So Cold In The D...
yikes! i dont know about that. watching players like Trevino, Nicklaus, Norman, Watson, Ballesteros, Faldo, Floyd, Miller, Payne Stewart, Olazabal, Zoeller was very exciting...it was exciting back then too, just as it is today
When i see how narrow their fairways are, i'm not in the least suprised when they miss. All the more astonishing that they actually hit, and how often.
Honestly, i can't name a course here that has fairways even double the width. 3-4 times that is more likely.
And Pro's would still miss em, because with a fairway like that they will show you what it looks like when they make a _real_ effort on a drive
The thing that really annoys me, is all the help they've got. If a ball is in the rough on a normal course, for an amateur player, it's half a catastrophe.
Try finding a ball in the knee-high stuff that lines some fairways.
Tour Pros don't play second balls. Neither do they have to go back to the teebox.
When they've put a ball into play (which means anything but water or OB), it's searched for until found, and probably not only by the players themselves.
And they find it in the absurdest places.
Native Area 30 feet off the course to the side? WTF?!
Honestly, i can't name a course here that has fairways even double the width. 3-4 times that is more likely.
And Pro's would still miss em, because with a fairway like that they will show you what it looks like when they make a _real_ effort on a drive
The thing that really annoys me, is all the help they've got. If a ball is in the rough on a normal course, for an amateur player, it's half a catastrophe.
Try finding a ball in the knee-high stuff that lines some fairways.
Tour Pros don't play second balls. Neither do they have to go back to the teebox.
When they've put a ball into play (which means anything but water or OB), it's searched for until found, and probably not only by the players themselves.
And they find it in the absurdest places.
Native Area 30 feet off the course to the side? WTF?!
- Staff
- #41
The help with ball spotting can't be avoided since the fairways are lined with people and there are cameras everywhere.
FWIW, Dustin Johnson had to go back to the tee at a tournamant earlier this year. I think it was might have been the Northern Trust?
FWIW, Dustin Johnson had to go back to the tee at a tournamant earlier this year. I think it was might have been the Northern Trust?
Smallville
#ICanHitADraw
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2008
- Messages
- 98,737
- Reaction score
- 531
- Location
- Kansas City, Kansas
- Handicap
- In Flux
As Hawk pointed out, they aren't always found. They only have five minutes to find it. Seems to me that this also happened in one of the majors last year (might have even been in 2008). They had it on camera and they still couldn't find it in the rough.
AHacker'sHacker
Who is John Galt?
I think Adam Scott lost one on camera last year.
MO_Hacker
At the drag strip
I agree with snow on this one, hell I wouldn't lose nearly as many if there was a crowd of people lining the fairways. (I'd probably be hoarse from yelling fore all day though)
AHacker'sHacker
Who is John Galt?
I know someone that I play the occasional round with who employs what he calls the “PGA rule”. If he hits a shot that should have been findable (i.e. not in a disaster spot) and he can’t find the ball he drops his ball approximately where it should have landed and plays from there without a penalty. His thought is if it would have been a shot on the PGA tour someone would have found it for the player and hence… The PGA Rule.
As did Robert Allenby at Farmer's Insurance during the final round.
MO_Hacker
At the drag strip
That's pretty awesome, my buddies and I often joke around about it but haven't put it into play. If the pros had to play on some of the goat tracks we play they wouldn't be scoring so well either. LMAO